From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HVU8x-000562-UQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:56:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l2PEtVXM009357; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:55:31 GMT Received: from outmail1.freedom2surf.net (outmail1.freedom2surf.net [194.106.33.237]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l2PEqJsV004497 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 14:52:19 GMT Received: from snowflake (82-41-57-20.cable.ubr08.edin.blueyonder.co.uk [82.41.57.20]) by outmail1.freedom2surf.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B4150187 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:52:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:52:20 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed addition to the Social Contract Message-ID: <20070325155220.6188004d@snowflake> In-Reply-To: <200703250454.34744.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1174788467.4883.29.camel@bruichladdich> <200703250454.34744.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.8.1 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e3fcda0c-4763-4a41-a999-57114e004612 X-Archives-Hash: 5fba04cd554353e010231e78bb215557 On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:54:33 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > i dont see why this is required ? ignoring the fact that the wording > is way too vague to do anything but cause confusion and people to > spout long winded rants, seems like useless nitpicking about an issue > that doesnt exist Well, I believe one hypothetical situation which it would address would be something like this: Gentoo, for whatever reason, ends up relying upon $sponsor for, say, two thirds of its hardware. $sponsor employs a Gentoo developer who has certain political views that aren't in line with Gentoo policy. Said developer uses his influence as an employee of $sponsor to get $sponsor to say to the Council "either you change policy to say blah within a month or we're going to stop sponsoring you". Now, something like that, were it to happen, would put Gentoo in a very tricky situation. The Council can't easily say no, since losing two thirds of its hardware would effectively halt development. Equally, however, it's not exactly a good idea for the Council to establish a precedent of rushing through policy changes that most people don't want because of outside pressure. *shrug* I guess that's the intention behind the proposal, anyway. If it is, I agree that Christel's wording isn't as clear as it could be... -- Ciaran McCreesh -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list